- 7,823
- 291
Nike Air Trainer Huarache - OG colorway returns! 2011
- Thread in 'Nike Retro' Thread starter Started by Sinner,
- Start date
- 7,072
- 11
Walked passed my local fa after they closed today and saw them on display will peep tomorrow for further inspection most likely will scoop a pair
- 13,924
- 5,899
The "furry" suede and "cheap" feel (or, as "CharmCity" put it, "ashy") is damn near identical to the originals. Most people praise the 2001s like they "it". Not so fast...
Interesting. Maybe the OGs werent as nice as we thought? Although I highly doubt that. It almost seems like Nike has some of us brainwashed. As if we dont know what good quality is anymore..
I had a pair of OG trainer max 91s. And to the average person I guess you could say they looked a bit cheap. The upper was this soft felt like material that never really gave it any DEFINED shape. Something never really seen done before. The upper was a bit like a mesh material or blanket when on one's foot. Possibly the only thing that made you realize how nice and soft they were, was comparing them to the retro... But it seems like when you do that here, the 2001 retro wins out? Could it be that it's been so long since we've seen a shoe use that material, that we assume different=bad? If so, we're falling prey to Nike's cheapness becoming the norm.
- 7,823
- 291
Shoes you mentioned are from very early 90s.
So all that you said (although I didn't quote it all) is more than valid.
I'm not the one to take "shoe pics" unless I'm selling something, lol. But I don't mind if y'all want some. I've worn mine for, er, 17 hours straight now. Can't even tell. Appearance wise (shoe) or discomfort wise (my feet are chilling).
That's quality in my world.
And we don't have to pay $160 - $200 MSRP either...
- 13,924
- 5,899
An ebay seller has some photos. Nothing really too shocking to turn me away from buying.
Some notable differences off photos:
-Back NIKE AIR looks to be a shiny sticker esque application on these latest retros. OGs and 2001 retros had an embossed NIKE AIR that seemed to pop out of the material to create that 3d effect.
-Inner midsole looks to be all black on this latest retro. OGs and 2001 retros had a white segment on the inner medial side midsole.
One thing I will say based off of some OG photos http://corgishoe.wordpres...he-blk-co-blk-wht-sz-12/
It looks like the black upper on those was a bit of a soft material too.. For 2011, you have that nappy grey felt material that tends to bubble a bit and not be exactly smooth, combined with a smooth stiff black upper.. Either you bring the softness to the entire upper like the OGs, or stay straight stiff like the 2001s. You can't fault them for trying I suppose but I can see how many would be turned off by these.
Some notable differences off photos:
-Back NIKE AIR looks to be a shiny sticker esque application on these latest retros. OGs and 2001 retros had an embossed NIKE AIR that seemed to pop out of the material to create that 3d effect.
-Inner midsole looks to be all black on this latest retro. OGs and 2001 retros had a white segment on the inner medial side midsole.
One thing I will say based off of some OG photos http://corgishoe.wordpres...he-blk-co-blk-wht-sz-12/
It looks like the black upper on those was a bit of a soft material too.. For 2011, you have that nappy grey felt material that tends to bubble a bit and not be exactly smooth, combined with a smooth stiff black upper.. Either you bring the softness to the entire upper like the OGs, or stay straight stiff like the 2001s. You can't fault them for trying I suppose but I can see how many would be turned off by these.
- 2
- 10
$450 on ebay...LMAO!!!
- 7,823
- 291
A difference I approve.
That white part was always the first to yellow/get dirty/get dingy, and impossible to clean. Always had to repaint it, or made sure you "babied" the shoes while walking.
NTer "Magic" used the word "butchered," which got me to respond. Too drastic and false of a term to use IMO for those still waiting to see these...
Bo SCs were butchered. That's a fact. These are more than viable for purchase. And I'm sure the majority of you will agree when you see them in person and put them on your feet...
Knowing that the majority here will use the 2001s was their foundation... Please DON'T. These are more of a 2011 retro (with little cheaper cosmetic changes as expected) of the O.G.
- 6,797
- 10
Def picking these up, I agree about the white on the insides, it only lasted but so long.
WIshfull thinking, I hope people sell their older pairs, def sucks not having 01s in the stash.
WIshfull thinking, I hope people sell their older pairs, def sucks not having 01s in the stash.
bubbaela1
Banned
- 1,061
- 12
dont fool yourselves. im sure this third version is nice. Or maybe it will give a few wears then have problems. Either way there isnt a re retro that will be better quality wise than a prior retro and surely even if you combined the best aspects of each shoe it still wouldnt stand up to an original materials wise. That being said, nike never put good material into shoes. I find it funny that the majority who speak of "how things were" and "originals" werent even buying shoes then. How many of you were actively interested in shoes in 1992 or 2001? and it has nothing to do with being better than anyone. You have to be old. Thats it. And in my opinion if you truly were buying shoes in 92 or 2001 youd know the quality wasnt good back then either. All day i hear people talk about quality from the past. Like the shoes were of the finest materials and components. Not the case at all. And in my opinion people who preach that rhetoric werent even actively buying shoes then or theyd know the materials and construction was never that good. The same issues and problems existed back then as they do today. Except today those issues happen faster, and by comparison the quality of materials and construction of shoes has decreased as production costs and production #s increased. its quite all right if you werent buying shoes 10 years ago,. or 20 years ago. It just means you either were too young or werent into shoes at that time. Youre not a lesser "sneakerhead" (or whatever term you prefer to pigeon hole yourself with) because of it. And just because im old and liked shoes back then doesnt mean im better. I just can give my input just as you can give your input on the 2011 model.
- 260
- 11
Heads up for those who care. Deadstockshoes.com (new shoetrends) has the euro like cw for 70 bucks. From pics the upper looks loke leather and nubuck mix with black leather around the toe. I personally don't like the leather on these.
- 13
- 10
I've been into kicks since the OG 6's came out in '91. They may not have used top quality leather but I don't ever recall a shoe having leather as poor as the retro 4s from '06, the Diamond Turfs from '05 or the Trainer SCs from '09. The only thing I remember is excessive glue stains and sloppy paint jobs. We didn't inspect kicks with a magnifying glass looking for something to complain about like kids do now, so it was a non issue.
Though, I do remember the midsoles not lasting as long, like my CB94s crumbling after a year of owning them. The same happened to my Air Force Highs from '93, my Jordan 8's and my "Godzillas" as well. All of them crumbled within about 2 years of their release. My 7's didn't crumble but the outsole separated from the midsole.
The main thing that kills me about retros, including this one is; the small changes they make. Like the shape being off. Most retros look like they've been smushed down or something.
Why can't they make the gray blueish like the OGs? Why did they have to make the midsole black on the medial side when it was white on the OGs? At least they made the heel tab and the back midsole gray. The first samples had me thinking about passing. I'm gonna buy these but I'm gonna feel like a chump for it. They're cheap knock offs to me. The only thing making them legit is that they're made by Nike. The Bordeaux 7's were my first J's, I'm not buying the retros. They look like fakes to me. These Huaraches are mediocre but they're close enough. The 7's on the other hand....nah.
- 7,823
- 291
As expected, it's a pre-sale.
And a pre-sale $30 off + free shipping should be further indication of how these will do.
- 862
- 11
i havent seen those in the store yet? did they release already?
- 13,924
- 5,899
I always appreciate your perspective. Maybe I'm living on the fringe or you may be talking about the majority of Nike's shoes here. But few and fair between there are truly some models that just stand out WAY ABOVE their retro counterpart. I don't know your collection as a whole but have seen the many items you have on your site..
Now I can agree, often times, a retro counterpart is so bad, that it makes a mediocre OG stand out as the "best". That happens A LOT. But I guess it's that rare exception that I've been following that tells a different story. I'm taking it you are talking about nike shoes as a whole, or the majority. Or as you put it, actively buying shoes
I got into shoes at this level around 2005. First 5 pairs I bought were basically retros. All quality. I began thinking this was the norm. Some Originals were purchased. All quality.. Now I can agree that this wasn't the norm at all (The reality hit me months later). Right out of the gate for Nike there was maybe 50-60 products a season. Some were probably mediocre. My stand this whole time has been a strict comparison of a few core models.. As a whole I agree with your point 100%. Digging into various models, maybe this isnt fair on my part for calling out only these specific models, when the same # or more may be worse off. I didn't have to be actively buying to see KEY signature models butchered as retros. But I agree, I would have to be quite old now and an active buyer, to remember Nike as a whole.
I can say "hey, these air trainer highs from 1990 are awesome. They are in my hand and are great. Why do the current retros suck so bad? Even the 2000 retro is great". I have a direct in my hand comparison. That's more than a fair point in my opinion. I guess where it's not fair is not looking at many of the other shoes that may in fact have sucked as originals. I think both points are right.
There is a old JB thread about OG vs. Retro models. Some are saying some of the newer VIs are as good or better than OGs. But many people have it stuck in their mind that thats not the case at all. Some of these own the originals. Some wore them and remember them from 15 years back and living off memories of how bad or good they were
- 7,823
- 291
#takesmyoldassoffthecomputer
1991 here. Hustling uncles -- and Jordan VI -- FTW...
- 7,072
- 11
scooped my pair about an hr ago...no complaints on the shoe...looked good in hand and on foot...my beef was with the amount of glue stains on the material...
irked me a bit but ima scoop another pair at a later date...my only other issue besides the glue stains was that damn new cheap as box Nike slinging now...
...ridiculous
For what its worth, they only had one in each size...
irked me a bit but ima scoop another pair at a later date...my only other issue besides the glue stains was that damn new cheap as box Nike slinging now...
For what its worth, they only had one in each size...
- 4,059
- 2,330
These shoes are nowhere in Saint Louis I'm quite upset about this.
- 7,823
- 291
Sloane Kettering wrote:
my only other issue besides the glue stains was that damn new cheap as box Nike slinging now......ridiculous
It's for economical "green" reasons, if you let [color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]them [/color]tell it.
Yeah. Really. Same thing I said.
Can't even stack these joints, they too thin...
- 610
- 23
how do these fit?
- 7,072
- 11
It's for economical "green" reasons, if you let them tell it.Originally Posted by eyes of hazel
Sloane Kettering wrote:
my only other issue besides the glue stains was that damn new cheap as box Nike slinging now......ridiculous
Yeah. Really. Same thing I said.
Can't even stack these joints, they too thin...
yea they saving green alright on these cheap %*@ boxes...
- 515
- 23
- 1,596
- 11
Originally Posted by eyes of hazel
#takesmyoldassoffthecomputer
1991 here. Hustling uncles -- and Jordan VI -- FTW...
I see what wally is saying... cuz i got into kicks "at this level" at early 2008.
But my initial inception began in 1989 (sporadically during the early 90's and
then the second half of that decade -highschool- became a avid collector then
slowed down during college. Now in the workforce, im able to beast again).
So you're telling us been going hard since 1991 - the way wally has since 05 and I in 08?
You'd have well over 1000 shoes if that's the case.
.
- 7,072
- 11
for me they fit a bit narrow, so i scooped a 12
Since we don't know what your normal size is, does that mean you went a half size up?
yea
- 225
- 10
I forgot all about this colorwayOriginally Posted by Beasly151
I hope they Bring the Green ones out
- 5,520
- 182
YO!
Kevin, say word? The OG's were that same texture? I had a dude not cop today cause they weren't like the last retro. Hmmm. I'm grabbing anyway.
I have NEVER forgotten about those green ones. Deion wore them in a Christmas commercial. Those are one of my GRAILS!
Anybody remember the women's/girl's color? It was like wht/purp with green or yellow. If not both. I really think Nike should've made women's colors in the Zoom TR.
DF!!!
Kevin, say word? The OG's were that same texture? I had a dude not cop today cause they weren't like the last retro. Hmmm. I'm grabbing anyway.
I have NEVER forgotten about those green ones. Deion wore them in a Christmas commercial. Those are one of my GRAILS!
Anybody remember the women's/girl's color? It was like wht/purp with green or yellow. If not both. I really think Nike should've made women's colors in the Zoom TR.
DF!!!
